Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 665208 times)

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3744
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #780 on: 05/14/2010 05:32 PM »
...no alternative of what exactly causes inertia is ever proffered. The question is never asked....

I don't think that inertia is understood just yet.

Per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Source_of_Inertia

Okay, so that's a more reasonable/acceptable answer: "We simply don't know yet."

But then the corollary to this is that we can't definitively rule out the ability to do propellant-less propulsion, since we don't know yet what causes inertia.

More also needs to be done then, to find out the origins of inertia.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2010 07:01 PM by sanman »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #781 on: 05/14/2010 06:35 PM »
... Your opinion may differ, so we really need to be doing experiments instead of brushing this inertia issue under the rug.

Paul:

Glad you're working on this stuff.  I did not express an opinion, but rather pointed to a common source of information, which indicates a general lack of understanding on this issue.  In addition, perhaps some people are indeed suggesting "brushing this inertia issue under the rug", but I did not say that.  In the number of months since I've posted here last, I have made some math headway in the field of calculus.  Nevertheless, the key issues of Woodward's derivation of Sciama's equation remain beyond me.

I have read some of Sciama's work.  We're familiar with Einstein's thought experiment of dropping a ball in the cab of an elevator, which seems to indicate that one can't differentiate between acceleration or gravitational attraction.  Sciama suggests dropping two balls.  In an accelerating frame, the balls would move parallel to one another.  In a gravitational frame, the balls would tend to converge to the center of gravity of the nearby body.  This struck me as a good experiment to differentiate between the two types of acceleration.

And now, I've shared pretty much everything I know about this subject.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26876
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6780
  • Likes Given: 4808
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #782 on: 05/14/2010 06:47 PM »
... Your opinion may differ, so we really need to be doing experiments instead of brushing this inertia issue under the rug.

Paul:

Glad you're working on this stuff.  I did not express an opinion, but rather pointed to a common source of information, which indicates a general lack of understanding on this issue.  In addition, perhaps some people are indeed suggesting "brushing this inertia issue under the rug", but I did not say that.  In the number of months since I've posted here last, I have made some math headway in the field of calculus.  Nevertheless, the key issues of Woodward's derivation of Sciama's equation remain beyond me.

I have read some of Sciama's work.  We're familiar with Einstein's thought experiment of dropping a ball in the cab of an elevator, which seems to indicate that one can't differentiate between acceleration or gravitational attraction.  Sciama suggests dropping two balls.  In an accelerating frame, the balls would move parallel to one another.  In a gravitational frame, the balls would tend to converge to the center of gravity of the nearby body.  This struck me as a good experiment to differentiate between the two types of acceleration.

And now, I've shared pretty much everything I know about this subject.
Of course, Einstein was talking about an inertial reference frame. If the two balls were dropped far enough apart that you could tell they weren't parallel, then it would no longer be an inertial reference frame.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2010 06:56 PM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3744
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #783 on: 05/14/2010 06:55 PM »
Another thing - why is Lorentz-Force/Electromagnetic-Force special for this field propulsion approach? Why not any other force, like Strong Nuclear Force, for example? Presumably the different falloff-range of that different force would require an appropriately different oscillation period or amplitude to produce useful results, but why couldn't any force be used to produce this effect? What's so special about Lorentz Force? Is it just the one that's most convenient to work with on a practical level?
« Last Edit: 05/14/2010 07:03 PM by sanman »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3744
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #784 on: 05/14/2010 07:33 PM »
...no alternative of what exactly causes inertia is ever proffered. The question is never asked....

I don't think that inertia is understood just yet.

Per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Source_of_Inertia

Furthermore, I thought the whole basis of conjecture for Higgs Boson is about inertia, since inertia is intrinsic to mass. How then is Mach's Principle reconciled with Higgs Theory? Aren't they competing ideas?

Mach's Principle says that your inertial properties are the result of the interaction of your mass with all the other masses in the universe, no matter how far away.

Higgs Theory says that your mass (and hence your inertia) properties are the result of your interaction with the Higgs field.

Are they both right? Are they each different ways of judging the same thing? Or does one inherently rule out the other?

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #785 on: 05/14/2010 10:02 PM »
...no alternative of what exactly causes inertia is ever proffered. The question is never asked....

I don't think that inertia is understood just yet.

Per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Source_of_Inertia

Furthermore, I thought the whole basis of conjecture for Higgs Boson is about inertia, since inertia is intrinsic to mass. How then is Mach's Principle reconciled with Higgs Theory? Aren't they competing ideas?

Mach's Principle says that your inertial properties are the result of the interaction of your mass with all the other masses in the universe, no matter how far away.

Higgs Theory says that your mass (and hence your inertia) properties are the result of your interaction with the Higgs field.

Are they both right? Are they each different ways of judging the same thing? Or does one inherently rule out the other?

I believe they can both be right, I don't see how the Sciama description of inertia interferes with the Higgs mechanism description of W and Z boson mass. The Higgs field would be one component of what makes up the mass-energy of the causually connected universe.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #786 on: 05/17/2010 04:03 AM »
If Mach's Principle is wrong, then Special and General Relativity are wrong. The central and most well known part of special relativity, m = e/c^2, says that mass and energy have an equivalence. Mass is a function of a body's resistance to acceleration (i.e. inertia), then energy must also be a function of its resistance to acceleration. This is where relativity defines the distinction between rest mass and inertial mass.

Where a Mach Effect thruster works is that since energy also has inertia, if you have a device that stores energy, like a capacitor, it should have greater inertial mass when charged than when discharged, and experimentally this is shown to be true particularly when the capacitor is under acceleration, hence the shuttler design of the ME thruster accelerates a capacitor in one direction and back in sync with the cycle of charging and discharging the capacitor.

Thus, critics of ME thruster theory are also critics of Relativity itself, and are asserting that energy does not have inertia.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 456
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #787 on: 05/17/2010 05:07 AM »
Brilliant! I have been struggling to understand the concept well enough to explain it to high school students. Energy has inertia, a charged capacitor is arguably more massive than when it has been discharged. Mach Effect thrusters synchronize the charging of capacitors to generate acceleration.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2010 05:09 AM by cygnusX1 »
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #788 on: 05/17/2010 05:36 AM »
Brilliant! I have been struggling to understand the concept well enough to explain it to high school students. Energy has inertia, a charged capacitor is arguably more massive than when it has been discharged. Mach Effect thrusters synchronize the charging of capacitors to generate acceleration.

Thanks. Dr. Woodward has written an article about Mach Effect theory for popular consumption that he's let those of us on his private mail list read and comment on before he submits it for publication. The article helped me immensely in understanding this topic much more deeply.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #789 on: 05/17/2010 05:50 AM »
Another thing - why is Lorentz-Force/Electromagnetic-Force special for this field propulsion approach? Why not any other force, like Strong Nuclear Force, for example? Presumably the different falloff-range of that different force would require an appropriately different oscillation period or amplitude to produce useful results, but why couldn't any force be used to produce this effect? What's so special about Lorentz Force? Is it just the one that's most convenient to work with on a practical level?

The answers for this will have to wait until Dr. Woodward's article is published. He's got some rather illuminating answers. Since the thrusters in question use electrons charging and discharging from capacitors, you would need to propose some equivalent means of rapid storage and discharge of strong nuclear forces. Essentially controlled cyclic fusion and fission, and to do so in a way that doesn't result in the energy being dissipated in radiation.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #790 on: 05/17/2010 07:28 AM »
...no alternative of what exactly causes inertia is ever proffered. The question is never asked....

I don't think that inertia is understood just yet.

Per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Source_of_Inertia

Furthermore, I thought the whole basis of conjecture for Higgs Boson is about inertia, since inertia is intrinsic to mass. How then is Mach's Principle reconciled with Higgs Theory? Aren't they competing ideas?

Mach's Principle says that your inertial properties are the result of the interaction of your mass with all the other masses in the universe, no matter how far away.

Higgs Theory says that your mass (and hence your inertia) properties are the result of your interaction with the Higgs field.

Are they both right? Are they each different ways of judging the same thing? Or does one inherently rule out the other?

I believe they can both be right, I don't see how the Sciama description of inertia interferes with the Higgs mechanism description of W and Z boson mass. The Higgs field would be one component of what makes up the mass-energy of the causually connected universe.

Quantum mechanics and Einsteinian physics are both "right" in that they work. But they really are two blind people touching the tail and the trunk of the elephant. One side smells like peanuts, and the other one... doesn't.

Here are some good papers on the subject of ZPF and inertia. It also explains why the Higgs field is not an explanation of inertia, rather it's an explanation of mass - ie it's just an energy field that (electro-weak) particles soak up. The attached papers are very enlightening. Note how similar a lot of the observations are to what James Woodward notes.

http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3744
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #791 on: 05/17/2010 04:30 PM »
Another thing - why is Lorentz-Force/Electromagnetic-Force special for this field propulsion approach? Why not any other force, like Strong Nuclear Force, for example? Presumably the different falloff-range of that different force would require an appropriately different oscillation period or amplitude to produce useful results, but why couldn't any force be used to produce this effect? What's so special about Lorentz Force? Is it just the one that's most convenient to work with on a practical level?

The answers for this will have to wait until Dr. Woodward's article is published. He's got some rather illuminating answers. Since the thrusters in question use electrons charging and discharging from capacitors, you would need to propose some equivalent means of rapid storage and discharge of strong nuclear forces. Essentially controlled cyclic fusion and fission, and to do so in a way that doesn't result in the energy being dissipated in radiation.

I too want to praise your concise and succinct description of the phenomenon, which brings clarity to it and makes it easier to understand.

So then by that definition, other forces like Strong Force could conceivably be useful, if only their potential states could be made to charge and discharge fast enough.

In that case, I wouldn't worry about full-blown fission and fusion, but rather about Quantum Nucleonics and nucleonic orbitals. As we know, the nucleons (protons+neutrons) also occupy different energy states or orbitals. They can be promoted or demoted in energy, just like other bound particle systems (eg. electrons).
The problem with nucleonics is in the coupling, because you'd charge  up nucleons by hitting them with high-energy photons, both of which unfortunately have low cross-sectional area. Likewise, they discharge by radiating high-frequency gamma photons, whose energy is difficult to harvest efficiently. So in that sense, Lorentz/Electromagnetic force is the more convenient to work with - at least using today's technology.

But if our vehicle's power supply had a lot of energy to waste, then you could use it to charge and discharge bound nucleonic states at high frequency, albeit low coupling efficiency, to intensify this propulsive effect for higher acceleration.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26876
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6780
  • Likes Given: 4808
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #792 on: 05/17/2010 04:49 PM »
People have been trying to make a nuclear lasers for decades. They're also still trying to just store energy in readily releasable form in nuclear isomers, but there's been no way found to considerably alter the half-life of isomers. Stick with electrons.

All this fanboy optimism is not helping the cause. What is needed is to convince the experts. I am a skeptic of this, but don't worry about designing a spacecraft right now. If this effect works in a clearly demonstrable and repeatable manner, you are guaranteed as much funding as you want. There are a million "game-changing" technologies or effects out there based off of "enlightened" physics... The only way to separate yourself from the others is by clear and repeatable (by outside groups) experiment.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3744
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #793 on: 05/17/2010 06:47 PM »
I agree - that's why I said Electromagnetic/Lorentz force is most convenient to work with at our current level of technology.

So based on this nice description we've just been given - which seems to rely on mass-energy equivalence rather than Mach's Principle - then the faster the oscillation and the greater the difference between the states of high and low charge potential, the more propulsive force is generated.

To me, this is like swimming strokes or oar strokes. When you move your hands forward while swimming, you keep them at an angle of least drag, and then when you pull them back, you keep them at an angle of high drag.
The difference in drag between the two is what propels you forward.

So for this "asymmetric mass oscillator" that we're talking about, you'd want the fastest mechanical oscillator with the most amplitude, as well as the highest-energy-density capacitor, in order to create as much net momentum as possible. What components are then available to choose from for this purpose?

The fastest mechanical oscillators are supposed to be nanomechanical systems, but they have commensurately shorter deformation lengths for smaller amplitude. With natural tradeoff between amplitude and frequency, I suppose energy-efficiency would be the tie-breaker (ie. which oscillator has the lowest energy-consumption per oscillation cycle?)

I'm not sure which capacitors have the highest electrostatic energy density. A quick google search says the "electric double-layer capacitor" has the highest capacitance.

(Just as an aside, I've always wondered if the unique macromolecular geometry of the bucky-onion could be used to radically increase charge capacitance. Suppose you had a bucky-onion and exposed its exterior surface to a negative charge, causing its Pi-electrons to migrate inwards. This then affects the adjacent lower layer, causing its Pi-electrons to migrate inwards, and so on. Because each lower layer has progressively smaller surface area, then you get a "hydraulic brake" effect where you are concentrating more and more electrostatic potential into a smaller and smaller space. This trapping geometry could mean a much higher storage potential, on a purely volumetric basis.)

« Last Edit: 05/17/2010 07:33 PM by sanman »

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #794 on: 05/17/2010 07:54 PM »
AFAIK the acceleration driver is actually the bulk movement of ions making up the caps, not the electrons as they make up a minute fraction of the cap rest mass. (Atomic mass of an electron is quite small...)

Therefore the actual bulk of the acceleration driver (gonna need new terminology here) is better served by being a higher fraction of the total mass of the engine. Ideally, the engine would be composed of nothing but the acceleration driver. The only thing that really pumps the drive system higher (ie nonlinear relationship) is oscillation frequency, but that has proven difficult to achieve engineering-wise in a small lab setup.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3744
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #795 on: 05/17/2010 09:13 PM »
I don't see how movement of ions helps more than movement of electrons - what seems to matter is that on the first half of the "stroke" (I'm using reciprocating piston engine terminology here) you've got more mass, and on the return part of the stroke you've got less mass.

Just like that phrase, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" - you've got a high-energy state which has greater mass than the lower-energy state. The difference in mass between the two states is of course very tiny, because of E=MC^2. But if your "piston" is oscillating frequently enough, then that small difference is going to add up with each successive stroke.

So if we're in Earth's gravitational field, and if each stroke produces net impulse, then all these little impulse-forces have to add up to an amount greater than the weight of our vehicle in order to overcome Earth's gravity.

But what if we want to conduct our experiment in a way that avoids fighting Earth's gravity? Sure, it would be nice if we could send a test apparatus to outer space, beyond the effects of Earth's gravity, but shouldn't there be a simpler way?

What if you have some kind of rotational oscillator instead of a reciprocating piston-like oscillator? Could there be some way to produce net rotational acceleration, instead of net linear acceleration? I'm just thinking out loud.

Let's say you have some kind of "torsional oscillator" or "torsion piston" - some kind of device whose job it is to spin one way and then back the other way, while pushing off of something else. So the first half of the stroke has it spinning clockwise, and the other half of the stroke has it spin back, counterclockwise. (like that dance - "The Twist")

http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/oscillations/applicationsofharmonicmotion/section1.html

So we play the same game, and create a higher energy state on the first half of the twist/stroke, and then bring it back down to a lower energy state on the return half of the twist/stroke. Since we've said that higher energy state on the first half of the stroke has more mass, then it produces more torque-reaction, while the return half of the stroke produces less torque-reaction. Same idea as your linear piston, but just in a rotational direction.

If this whole mach-lorentz idea is worth anything, then it should be able to produce rotational acceleration and not just linear acceleration. You should be able to accelerate a wheel or gyroscope faster and faster.

« Last Edit: 05/17/2010 09:13 PM by sanman »

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #796 on: 05/17/2010 10:46 PM »
AFAIK the acceleration driver is actually the bulk movement of ions making up the caps, not the electrons as they make up a minute fraction of the cap rest mass. (Atomic mass of an electron is quite small...)

Therefore the actual bulk of the acceleration driver (gonna need new terminology here) is better served by being a higher fraction of the total mass of the engine. Ideally, the engine would be composed of nothing but the acceleration driver. The only thing that really pumps the drive system higher (ie nonlinear relationship) is oscillation frequency, but that has proven difficult to achieve engineering-wise in a small lab setup.

Actually it is the electrons that matter, but those are details that Dr. Woodward lays out in his article, and you'll have to wait for publication unless he okays discussion about it.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #797 on: 05/18/2010 10:10 AM »
Bleh, got confused there. Went back and had a re-read of the article plus his older stuff. I think I have a better understanding of what's going on, now.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2010 10:11 AM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #798 on: 05/20/2010 05:07 AM »
Guys:

Bulk accelerated ions in the dielectric that are under a concurrent time rate of change of their energy/stress couplings in their local environment is what causes the ambient gravinertial field around these ions to be transiently distorted or kinked.  It is these resulting transient local gravinertial field distortions around the dielectric ions that give rise to the inertial mass fluctuaions that is the M-E.  The dielectric's applied time rate of change of electric charge (electron flow) and resulting B-fields are just the necessary intermediators of the E&M forces needed to generate these Mach-Effects.
Star-Drive

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3744
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #799 on: 05/20/2010 02:06 PM »
Again, I thought it's like mlorrey said, where the mass-energy sum on one part of the reciprocating oscillation stroke is different than the mass-energy sum on the other part of the stroke, so that the resulting imbalance leads to net momentum change.


Tags: